A simple question for creationists.

[That Dude]

Yes and you are entitled to carry on as much as you like. Have fun.

Never would have thought that would be your response.
100 points for unoriginality.

 

[mr black]

Never would have thought that would be your response.
100 points for unoriginality.

I'm sorry, I should have said "I don't want to play anymore," but you already had.

 

[Looncall]

Not many creationist know of the objects that have been found fossilized
Like, a fossilized human foot inside a boot, or fossilized tools, a hat, clothes and so on.
Just like, not many evolutionist know that carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years.
Making it impossible for dinosaur bones to have it, but they do.
Even if you take away the fossilized objects, a petrified tree would have to become petrified quickly, or the wood would rot.

Your ignorance is showing. There are ways for C-14 to generated by surrounding radioactivities.

 

[camanintx]

Just like, not many evolutionist know that carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years.
Making it impossible for dinosaur bones to have it, but they do.

With a half-life of 5,700 years, how much C14 do you think would be left in a fossil after 11,400 years?

 

[painted wolf]

Not many creationist know of the objects that have been found fossilized
Like, a fossilized human foot inside a boot, or fossilized tools, a hat, clothes and so on.

Actually those things have been calcified... usually inside old mine shafts and caves. They are not fossilized.

Just like, not many evolutionist know that carbon 14 has a half life of 5,700 years.
Making it impossible for dinosaur bones to have it, but they do.

Actually we know this quite well, which is why C14 is never used to date dinosaurs. What creationists don't understand is when you put something with no C14 into a machine that tests for C14 it will give you back crazy readings anyway.... the way you know it's an anomaly of the machine is that different machines will all give wildly different strange readings, even if you test the same sample again and again. This is why samples are tested by several machines and more than once each machine.

Creationists like to use the anomalous readings as "true" even though they should know better.... I can't say if they are lying purposefully to trick their followers or if they genuinely and conveniently "forgot" this simple fact.

Even if you take away the fossilized objects, a petrified tree would have to become petrified quickly, or the wood would rot.

Not really, there are trees hundreds of years old at the bottom of lakes and reservoirs all over the USA and the world. This is because between the cold of the water the lack of oxygen down there means decay is essentially stopped.

In fact there is a thriving industry devoted to pulling these massive remains of a bygone logging history across the country. Since such large trees have been gone for more than a century, they are worth a lot of money... if you can pull them up off the lake bed.
They even have their own submersible robotic lumberjacks.
Sawfish: mining the forgotten forests of the sea - Boing Boing
Wired 15.02: Reservoir Logs
Underwater Logging: Submarine Rediscovers Lost Wood

wa:do

 

[That Dude]

Your ignorance is showing. There are ways for C-14 to generated by surrounding radioactivities.

Funny you should mention ignorance.
The same reasons should make carbon 14 dating useless for dating anything.
There's carbon 14 in coal.
But yet, it isn't considered useless and is still used to make the argument you're making.
If not, how do YOU explain fossils?

 

[That Dude]

Actually those things have been calcified... usually inside old mine shafts and caves. They are not fossilized.

Actually we know this quite well, which is why C14 is never used to date dinosaurs. What creationists don't understand is when you put something with no C14 into a machine that tests for C14 it will give you back crazy readings anyway.... the way you know it's an anomaly of the machine is that different machines will all give wildly different strange readings, even if you test the same sample again and again. This is why samples are tested by several machines and more than once each machine.

Creationists like to use the anomalous readings as "true" even though they should know better.... I can't say if they are lying purposefully to trick their followers or if they genuinely and conveniently "forgot" this simple fact.

Actually "anything" past a certain age gives anomalous readings so it proves nothing. That's why creationist ignore it. But they do tell you about it. Which evolutionist don't. The only argument evolutionist make is the one they choose to.

Not really, there are trees hundreds of years old at the bottom of lakes and reservoirs all over the USA and the world. This is because between the cold of the water the lack of oxygen down there means decay is essentially stopped.

In fact there is a thriving industry devoted to pulling these massive remains of a bygone logging history across the country. Since such large trees have been gone for more than a century, they are worth a lot of money... if you can pull them up off the lake bed.
They even have their own submersible robotic lumberjacks.
Sawfish: mining the forgotten forests of the sea - Boing Boing
Wired 15.02: Reservoir Logs
Underwater Logging: Submarine Rediscovers Lost Wood

wa:do

Except that there are sections of forest with trees found standing upright that are petrified.

 

[PolyHedral]

Funny you should mention ignorance.
The same reasons should make carbon 14 dating useless for dating anything.
There's carbon 14 in coal.
But yet, it isn't considered useless and is still used to make the argument you're making.
If not, how do YOU explain fossils?

You think that radiometric dating works just by testing for something being there at all? We know C14 is there, but more importantly, we know how much there should be. Because we know that, we can deduce things when there isn't that much left.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually "anything" past a certain age gives anomalous readings so it proves nothing. That's why creationist ignore it. But they do tell you about it. Which evolutionist don't. The only argument evolutionist make is the one they choose to.

No... that's why scientists don't use C14 to test fossils. They use other methods with longer half-lives to test older things. It's pretty intro to geology or chemistry stuff.

Scientists are very up front about the limitations of C14 as is evidenced by any article written about the method.

Except that there are sections of forest with trees found standing upright that are petrified.

Yeah, and there are still forests standing upright underwater today... that's why they invented that underwater robot lumberjack I linked to... what is your point?

wa:do

 

[That Dude]

With a half-life of 5,700 years, how much C14 do you think would be left in a fossil after 11,400 years?

This has the smell of updawg about it.

 

[McBell]

This has the smell of updawg about it.

Sure looks like you are back peddling...

 

[That Dude]

No... that's why scientists don't use C14 to test fossils. They use other methods with longer half-lives to test older things. It's pretty intro to geology or chemistry stuff.

Scientists are very up front about the limitations of C14 as is evidenced by any article written about the method.

Yes.
Other methods that are just as questionable and that still doesn't answer why carbon 14 is even found in dinosaur bones. Other then, it seeped in somehow. There is no evidence to show how it got there.

Yeah, and there are still forests standing upright underwater today... that's why they invented that underwater robot lumberjack I linked to... what is your point?

wa:do

These aren't underwater.

 

[That Dude]

Sure looks like you are back peddling...

Back pedaling is asking questions like, how much carbon 14 is in a fossil.
If it wasn't a question based on assumption then maybe you could just answer it and end the assumptions.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes.
Other methods that are just as questionable and that still doesn't answer why carbon 14 is even found in dinosaur bones. Other then, it seeped in somehow. There is no evidence to show how it got there.

Did you read what I said earlier about how the machines work?

These aren't underwater.

Not any more, they are in rock that used to be sediment.... or in some cases volcanic ash.
Volcanic ash is also great for preserving things for much the same reason as cold low oxygen water... seals out the oxygen that bacteria need to break down wood.

Again.... your point?

wa:do

 

[That Dude]

Did you read what I said earlier about how the machines work?

Think so. Could have misread something.
As far as I know you simply said "other processes" or something like that.
To which I said, they're not reliable.

Not any more, they are in rock that used to be sediment.... or in some cases volcanic ash.
Volcanic ash is also great for preserving things for much the same reason as cold low oxygen water... seals out the oxygen that bacteria need to break down wood.

Again.... your point?

wa:do

Let me get this straight as you've stated in this post and others.
The objects, like a hat, boot and including trees, can only become stone once they're deprived of oxygen some how and that cause is most likely being submerged under water in the sediment?

 

[McBell]

Back pedaling is asking questions like, how much carbon 14 is in a fossil.
If it wasn't a question based on assumption then maybe you could just answer it and end the assumptions.

You back peddle well.

 

[That Dude]

You back peddle well.

No assumptions were made?
And no one is trying to yank my chain?

Let me guess, your answer will be some vague form of goading?

 

[painted wolf]

Think so. Could have misread something.
As far as I know you simply said "other processes" or something like that.
To which I said, they're not reliable.

S'cool... there is a lot to keep track of in a forum like this.

Basically, there are a few issues that need to be dealt with when using a C14 test...
1) You have to make sure you are getting a pure sample... It can't be surface area and it can't have been exposed to outside sources of C14. Thus, you can't just pick up a fossil off the ground and test it.
This is why C14 tests are done with several very carefully collected samples sent to various labs for independent testing.
2) If there is no C14 the machine will still give an erroneous reading... these readings will be wildly different from one another each time you test the same material. Getting such wonky readings is one way you can tell if your sample is bad... either contaminated or too young or too old.
Again, this is why multiple independent labs are used in valid reserch... so that you can prevent an erroneous reading from getting through.
3) Because C14 is only good for a limited time frame, it is never used to date fossils anyway. Other isotopes with established half-lives that are much longer are used instead. Such as Argon, Potassium and Uranium.

Let me get this straight as you've stated in this post and others.
The objects, like a hat, boot and including trees, can only become stone once they're deprived of oxygen some how and that cause is most likely being submerged under water in the sediment?

No, the boot and hat aren't fossils because they are only calcified, they are not fossilized. There is a very important distinction between the two.

The trees and oxygen was a response to your statement that trees under water will rot before they can fossilize... which is demonstrably false. Trees can survive intact underwater for centuries without rotting.

However, getting something out of contact with oxygen is very helpful for it to become a fossil. Decay is reliant on oxygenating bacteria and in an anoxic environment decay is so slow that the body has plenty of time to be covered with sediment and for mineralization to begin.

An easy way to test this at home is to take two whole chickens from the store and put them in a five gallon bucket each. One in an empty bucket and the other in surrounded by sand and topped off with water. Check back on your chickens in a few weeks and you will find the one in the empty bucked will be essentially a puddle of goo... the one in sand will still have feathers, skin as well as some muscle and all the bones.

here are some helpful links: Anoxic waters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Filming the Dreaded Chicken Experiment | causecast.org

wa:do

 

[McBell]

No assumptions were made?
And no one is trying to yank my chain?

Let me guess, your answer will be some vague form of goading?

Now you ARE being boring.

And it still looks like back peddling.

 

[camanintx]

This has the smell of updawg about it.

It's really a simple question. If only half of the C14 is left after 5,700 years, then how much will be left after 11,400 years?